Hi @Art,
Below are some funds that I own (by sleeve and my classification) that kick off some good income.
In world equity I use CWGIX, DEQAX & EADIX
In domestic equity I use ANCFX, FDSAX & SVAAX
In global hybrid I use CAIBX, PMAIX & TIBAX
In domestic hybrid three I favor of seven owned are AMECX, FRINX & HWIAX.
In hybrid income three I favor of seven owned are APIUX, FKINX & PGBAX
In tactical hybrids (income) I use BAICX & PCGAX
Funds of funds I use CTFAX, ISFAX & LABFX
Multi sector bond funds I use LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX
I am not saying these are the current very best funds to own; but, they are the ones I have would up with through my many years of investing; and, I feel they have treated me well.
Know that I own some other funds as well (in the growth area of my portfolio) that kick off some good income in the form of capital gains with some paying dividends as well
Global growth sleeve I own ANWPX, SMCWX & THOAX
Large mid cap sleeve I own AGTHX, AMCPX & SPECX
Small mid cap sleeve I own IIVAX, PCVAX & PMDAX
Specialty & theme sleeve I own LPEFX, NEWFX & PGUAX
In short words most funds that I own kick off some good income in some form and fashion. Usually, my portfolio's distribution yield usually runs from a range of 4 to 6 percent which includes interest, dividends and capital gain distributions. Over the past five years my total return ranges form 8 to 12 percent. Generally, I take no more than one half of my five year average return has been. In this way, principal builds over time.
Old_Skeet

I don't think this is a 'challenge' at all and in fact I think it supports this theory. I understand Gundlach as warning that investors are too interested in bonds that have interest rate risk and they most likely don't understand what will happen when rates go up.
Here's another piece on Gundlach's current perspective and hopefully it hasn't been posted before: https://advisorperspectives.com/articles/2017/11/17/gundlachs-top-etf-recommendation?
He warned of dangers in the high-yield market. “Covenant-lite” (bonds with weak protections for investors) as a percentage of total loan issuance has averaged over 70% for the last three years, versus never being above 33% from 2003 to 2012.
With regard to the investment-grade market, he said the average duration is 7 but investors “don’t think prices can go down. Watch out, they have interest-rate risk.”
Is there any way to evaluate whether a high yield manager is investing in "covenant-lite" bonds? I presume the ratings of bonds don't tell you as they focus on the health of the company and the risk they'll default rather than the protections investors have if they do default.

Chuck shows ALMGX inception as 12/29/16. MS the same. That would make it 2 years young 12/29/18.
Derf

Thanks @Ted.
El-Erian has been on the "policy stimulus takeover from central bank stimulus" kick for at least 6 years. I don't think he's wrong.
As for the exchange below, I would add preferred stock as a relatively illiquid market that could suffer in a market downturn.
With regard to liquidity, you wrote that investors have been “enticed to become increasingly exposed to historically illiquid asset class segments.” Are there any of those historically illiquid asset classes that investors should be wary of, because their liquidity will not withstand a market downturn?
Yes, those whose dedicated investor base is relatively narrow in comparison to the potentially more volatile “cross-over” money that has flowed in. As an illustration, this would include parts of the high yield corporate bond markets and certain segments of emerging markets.

Connecting the David Swenson discussion dots:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/36708/conversation-with-david-swenson#latest
@MikeM2, using VWINX (VWENX) as a retirement distribution strategy is also another worthy attribute of the fund.

VWINX is the clear winner. Providing 25 years of inflation adjusted 4% annual distributions with a residual value over 89% greater than its beginning value

long-term-growing-income-open-end-mutual-fund-possible

**But Yale’s allocation to U.S. stocks is simply too low. And Swensen may need to acknowledge that the passive strategies he derides have stacked up well against endowments in the past 10 years.**
In Dr. Swenson's book he lays out a passive portfolio with Vanguard funds for the average investor(like me). Derides seems a little strong. The article didn't mention the portfolio's standard deviation relative to the SP500 or a 80/20 stock bond portfolio. Something else I find interesting is that Vanguard's Wellesley Income (40%dividend/value stock/60% income) has a 10 year record competitive with the SP500 if you consider that that the Admiral shares are 15 basis points and the 10 yrs STD deviation is 6.34.
JMHO,
Mike

FYI: Mohamed A. El-Erian is the chief economic advisor for Allianz SE. Before joining Allianz, Dr. El-Erian held positions as chief executive and co-chief investment officer of PIMCO and president and CEO of Harvard Management Company, the entity that manages Harvard’s endowment and related accounts. Dr. El-Erian was also a managing director at Salomon Smith Barney/Citigroup in London and spent 15 years with the International Monetary Fund in Washington, DC.
Dr. El-Erian has published widely on international economic and finance topics. His 2008 best-seller, When Markets Collide, was named a book of the year by The Economist, and one of the best business books of all time by The Independent (UK). He was one of Foreign Policy’s “Top 100 Global Thinkers” for four years in a row, and is a contributing editor for the Financial Times. His newest book – The Only Game in Town: Central Banks, Instability and Avoiding the Next Collapse – is another New York Times best-seller.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2017/11/15/mohamed-el-erian-which-asset-classes-are-most-vulnerable

*hmgodwin

Thank you, openice. I didnt know that the past commentaries were available. Such is sufficient to determine if a personal investment is warranted. Thank you for the knowledge.

Appreciate that!
@lewis braham
Thanks for your cautionary remarks about composite returns -- well-taken. I also find these returns helpful but not definitive.
Here is a summary of what I learned from a call this morning with Louis Shapiro, one of the PMs-- what he said and what he's verified from my own research/assessment.
The managers have never had liquidity issues in the small cap composite despite having concentrated positions. At the same time, he acknowledges that liquidity could happen in the funds -- a point you raised. What they are hoping for is that the new funds will have sticker assets as well. (Of course, this is unknown,)
His feeling is based on holders in the composites having been long-term investors who have invested more when markets have done well and in those that have done poorly -- a conclusion I reached and brought to his attention after seeing the performance statistics for all their calendar years. He said that they will see how new fund investors react to dislocations in the markets and with more AUM in these funds.
Last, he feels that the new products are repeatable and scalable for those who are not chasing performance, who understand the strategies because they are clearly communicated, e.g., the funds do well in up markets but also see that most of the money is made when stocks fall out of favor for certain periods. (The practical qualifiers)
The funds are now available at Schwab:
SMID Funds: Basic and IRA-- SHDYX N Class $100 basic and IRA; SHDIX I Class 250K; SHDYX Y Class 100K
All-Cap Funds: Basic and IRA -- SHXPX N Class, SHXYX Y Class, and SHXIX -- Ibid.
So currently, the preceding is all I can write. I will remain cautious in view of what you've said and the summary above.

Thought this link was worthy of the thread.
The article's introduction grabs you like a good novel:

It had been a little over a week since anyone had seen Karina Chikitova. The forest she had walked into nine days prior was known for being overrun with bears and wolves. Luckily, she was with her dog and it was summer in the Siberian Taiga, a time when the night time temperature only dropped to 42 degrees (6 Celsius). However, there was still one major problem — Karina was just 4 years old.

a-little-knowledge-is-dangerous
Could be Russian Fake news, but I hope not:
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721673/The-real-Mowgli-Russian-girl-survives-11-days-nights-lost-Siberian-wolf-bear-infested-wilderness.html

As far as the CD - ZEOIX comparison, ZEOIX has averaged about 3% return over the last 5 years, 2.8% over the last 3. You can now get a CD through Goldman Sachs Bank at 2.4%. Personally, if you are working outside a brokerage, I would ladder 5 year CDs as opposed to owning ZEOIX, but to each their own.

Well, Zero and Zeo are similar sounds. If R stands for Return then Zeo, lacking an R sure enough is not impressive in the R department. But ZEOIX is not for accumulating wealth.
BTW, why go with a brokerage when you can go directly to the fund transfer agent and pay no fee?
As for CD rates even at 6 years I don't see anything right now quite as "high" as ZEOIX's modest returns. In a mutual fund the money is liquid. But yeah, CDs are likely to go up. But meanwhile......
I appreciate everyone's opinion, including Ted's, even though I think I disagree about this fund's turkeyness. Thanks for chiming in. However my real question is "why is Chips's 2014 evaluation described by MFO as "mixed"?

I see pluses and minuses for the fund. I looked at it a couple years ago in my IRA and decided it wasn't worth the cost, high exp. ratio and TF at Schwab. If you are using it as a "superior mattress fund" outside a brokerage, wouldn't buying a 5 year CD be even more comfy thean that mattress fund? CD's make about the same yearly return and (IM<HO) CD's have no place to go but up. HY bonds, even very short term, you can't guarantee the same. In fact down is more likely.
You won't get very good CD or money market rates at a brokerage, so if that's the case ZEOIX may be a good option. But if you are talking money that has more options, money that you want to stash in a safe place, I wouldn't go there. I'd start looking at CD's.

I like them as well. Years ago, on the Friday after Thanksgiving, I decided to wander into their offices. Some people shop retail on Black Friday, I shop funds.
Really nice views and nice people. But then I saw lots of Apple machines ready to be unboxed. If they were a growth shop, I could understand buying the sizzle. But they were supposed to be focusing on intrinsic value. Such a disappointment :-)

The "technicalities" concern owning just one fund. By hypothesis, one would have to divest of other investments prior to going on that "three hour tour". So an investor would be stuck with lots of cash (as well as holding that fund) if the fund were presently (hard-) closed.
The possibility that the selected fund might close in the future while one is on that island is of no import, because even hard closed funds allow reinvestment of dividends. Thus a purported advantage of passive investments (that they don't close) isn't real.
With that in mind, would you reconsider your newly stated preference for passive investments? Also, what does "equity instrument" mean? Does it include ETNs, individual securities, perhaps even perps, or just mutual funds?
I agree with the "global equity" aspect, and stated so previously. I didn't suggest a fund because (with a cursory look) I didn't see one that particularly excited me. The usual suspects all seem to be showing signs of bloat, and few others stand out (to me).
FLPSX has been suggested - it's virtually a global fund anyway (50/40 US/foreign). But it is also huge (Tillinghast manages other funds as well in a similar style) and has management risk (Tillinghast is 59, and Fidelity started adding comanagers six years ago). I'd also prefer something with more EM exposure. DODWX is better with EM exposure, but is lacking in small (or even midcap) exposure.

FYI: (The Linkster has always been a fan of this San Francisco treat.) (Speaking of funds to hold 10-15 years, how about DODGX and DODFX.)
Dodge & Cox sets a high bar for the asset-management industry. Its many investor-friendly attributes continue to earn the firm a Positive Parent Pillar rating.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=836682

hmgodwin

A concern about the Launch Alert for American Beacon Shapiro Equity Opportunities Fund: There is almost no relevant information about the fund besides the strategy seems to have done well for the past decade-plus. There is almost no one who is going to put money into such fund without knowing what is currently in it or at least some examples of what used to be in the strategy during certain time periods.

Thanks for your comments.
Because the funds only recently launched, we will not see relevant information until EOY 4Q2017. Most new funds will not have current information available immediately after launch, and so this is as expected.
On the other hand, while investors may be unwilling to invest in these funds without knowing what is currently in them, ten years of detailed quarterly commentary for both private strategies are available from the firm. These commentaries have significant explanatory depth and clearly communicate specific stock positions, the reasons for owning, selling, or holding them, how discrete segments of the portfolio are constituted, and how current market conditions affect their positioning and outlook -- in other words -- we know what has been in them from detailed facts about how the strategies are being managed, not only currently, but also historically.
This year the Observer has done three launch alerts of new funds that have begun from successful predecessor strategies. The ones from Shapiro are the fourth. The launch alerts are not recommendations to buy these funds but are intended to provide relevant background, such as composite strategies, so that we can decide what potential they may have for investment based on what is already known.
The 3Q2017 commentary of the Shapiro composite strategies was released October 26th. While they don't discuss the new funds, they do provide information about some specific holdings replete with their usual overall depth about the strategies -- a helpful analysis in seeing how the new funds may be invested.

Thank you, openice. I didnt know that the past commentaries were available. Such is sufficient to determine if a personal investment is warranted. Thank you for the knowledge.

Regarding VGWIX, VGWAX, etc., my global allocation fund of choice is SGENX, available load-waived at Schwab. If bonds are needed, may be supplement with PONDX. I have owned SGENX for a very long time. My other long-term holds (>10 years, some >15 years) are OAKBX, FPACX, MACSX.

Hi all,
It is for sure some will have greater success at positioning than others. I have found it best for me to allocate even within the growth area of my portfolio where no sleeve is less than 20% nor greater than 30%. In this way, I don't put too much, or to less, into a sleeve. Thus far it has worked well. Last year my small/mid cap sleeve lead. This year it trails with the other three sleeves (large mid cap, global growth and specialty/theme) being the producers. And, even the small/mid cap sleeve has produced year-to-date (at just short of 7%); but, just not as much as the others.
We each have our style of investing. For me, I am for the most part an asset allocator who plays around the edges and moves some money from time-to-time based upon my read into what I perceive will be the faster moving currents within the market.
But, to do this I have to continue to be a good student following the markets as they are forever changing. And, that is why I maintain both a domestic and global market compass as well as my market barometer that follows and scores certain aspects the S&P 500 Index and scales it into a barometer reading.
Many years ago I enjoyed some weekend visits to the dog track betting the dogs. One of my strategies was to bet three dogs to win, place or show as it produced more winning proceeds for me over betting one dog to win. So, I modified this betting strategy and incorporated it into my investment portfolio.
For me, it has worked well. Both, at the track and within my portfolio.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

@jlev,

How long would people wait before deciding their level of comfort/ trust with VGWAX?

I've thought about this as well. My take is when a mutual fund is introduced it has the benefit or challenges of the market cycle. Funds that became available in say 2007 had a serious set of challenges to overcome. Most new funds (less than 10 years) have not been tested through a serious bear market...well, maybe the energy and commodity funds have.
Two things strike me as interesting to follow with regard to VGWIX (VGWAX):
1. What will management select as initial purchases... equity, bond, and other.
2. How will VGWIX perform out of the gate and over the short term in comparison to VWINX...a brother from the same mother. Sibling rivalry or will big brother VWINX have VGWIX back? Me thinks the latter.

@MikeM: I use sector funds/etfs such as utility and staples to add ballast and counterbalance some of my more aggressive funds or to correct underweighting of sectors in my overall portfolio. I had to sell the utility fund I had at ML when I transferred, since it was not offered at Fido. They did accept FRUAX when I transferred the roth, but one year earlier when I transferred the traditional ira, they did not, so bought VPU in its place. Same story on the health care funds, they would not accept PHSZX in the ira, so I bought SHSAX, but did accept it by the time i transferred the roth. I added IHI and FRHFX when I sold PJP and my biotech fund. I liked the emphasis on medical devices over biotech going forward. I was light on financials, so I added JRBFX. No, I do not think I know more than mf managers, as a matter of fact, I used to be all funds and no etfs and over the last two years did some comparisons and in some of the sectors I actually liked the etfs better. I enjoy investing and most of my portfolio is in funds Ive had for many years such as the Vanguard funds. Im sure I could consolidate further by getting rid of the funds that I cannot add to that I brought over from ML but all of the ones I kept do well.
I basically am following the sector weightings my ML advisor set up, I just dont pay for the advice anymore, and I left ML because they have limited fund offerings. They sell very few Vanguard funds, which was my original impetus to start moving over to Fido.
We all invest as we see fit, mine works for me, and I assume your works for you.